Neither he, nor the millions who were shocked by his murder, could have possibly predicted that seven years later his abductor, Omar Saeed Sheikh, according to several South Asian reports, would be planning terror acts from the safety of a Pakistani jail. Or that his murderer, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, now in Guantanamo, would proudly boast of his murder in a military tribunal in March 2007 to the cheers of sympathetic jihadi supporters. Or that this ideology of barbarism would be celebrated in European and American universities, fueling rally after rally for Hamas, Hezbollah and other heroes of “the resistance.” Or that another kidnapped young man, Israeli Gilad Shalit, would spend his 950th day of captivity with no Red Cross visitation while world leaders seriously debate whether his kidnappers deserve international recognition.

No. Those around the world who mourned for Danny in 2002 genuinely hoped that Danny’s murder would be a turning point in the history of man’s inhumanity to man, and that the targeting of innocents to transmit political messages would quickly become, like slavery and human sacrifice, an embarrassing relic of a bygone era.

But somehow, barbarism, often cloaked in the language of “resistance,” has gained acceptance in the most elite circles of our society. The words “war on terror” cannot be uttered today without fear of offense. Civilized society, so it seems, is so numbed by violence that it has lost its gift to be disgusted by evil.

For all its supposed condemnation and “outrage” of terror attacks, “world opinion” has given legitimacy to terrorism and barbarism. It does this whenever it draws “moral equivalence” between Taliban thugs and “freedom fighters”; it does this when world opinion fails to distinguish that in the conflict between Hamas and Israel, one side aches for peace; the other sues for total annihilation in order to have it. Instead of recognizing which nation is morally superior, appeasers and excuse-makers have only succeeded in defending terrorism and normalize the evil that human monsters do.

How is it that the so-called “peace movement” calls the United States “imperialist” and “the biggest terrorist”; and then cite (often over-inflated) Iraqi body count figures without distinguishing innocent civilians from insurgents? Who are the ones actually targeting civilians and government officials for murder? It’s not the U.S.

Australia’s Herald Sun reports that Samira Jassam, known as “the mother of the believers,” orchestrated the rape and forced recruitment of 81 women into suicide martyrdom operations in Iraq:

A WOMAN suspected of recruiting more than 80 female suicide bombers has confessed to organising their rapes so she could later convince them that martyrdom was the only way to escape the shame.

John at Powerline responds: “Our enemies can sink to depths of depravity that most of us would be hard-pressed even to imagine … This is the kind of thing that makes me skeptical that the solution to the problem of Islamic terrorism is diplomacy.”

The moral inversion of the anti-war movement is disgusting.

Sure, there are some empty rhetoric by liberals saying they’re outraged; but it doesn’t go without adding excuse-caveats about how “they’re just fighting for their freedom against imperialist occupiers”; “there wouldn’t be any suicide bombers if not for the illegal U.S. invasion of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11″.

The media have played a major role in handing terrorism this victory of acceptability. Qatari-based Al Jazeera television, for example, is still providing Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi hours of free air time each week to spew his hateful interpretation of the Koran, authorize suicide bombing, and call for jihad against Jews and Americans.

Then came the August 2008 birthday of Samir Kuntar, the unrepentant killer who, in 1979, smashed the head of a four-year-old Israeli girl with his rifle after killing her father before her eyes. Al Jazeera elevated Kuntar to heroic heights with orchestras, fireworks and sword dances, presenting him to 50 million viewers as Arab society’s role model. No mainstream Western media outlet dared to expose Al Jazeera efforts to warp its young viewers into the likes of Kuntar. Al Jazeera’s management continues to receive royal treatment in all major press clubs.

Some American pundits and TV anchors didn’t seem much different from Al Jazeera in their analysis of the recent war in Gaza. Bill Moyers was quick to lend Hamas legitimacy as a “resistance” movement, together with honorary membership in PBS’s imaginary “cycle of violence.” In his Jan. 9 TV show, Mr. Moyers explained to his viewers that “each [side] greases the cycle of violence, as one man’s terrorism becomes another’s resistance to oppression.” He then stated — without blushing — that for readers of the Hebrew Bible “God-soaked violence became genetically coded.” The “cycle of violence” platitude allows analysts to empower terror with the guise of reciprocity, and, amazingly, indict terror’s victims for violence as immutable as DNA.

When we ask ourselves what it is about the American psyche that enables genocidal organizations like Hamas — the charter of which would offend every neuron in our brains — to become tolerated in public discourse, we should take a hard look at our universities and the way they are currently being manipulated by terrorist sympathizers.

At my own university, UCLA, a symposium last week on human rights turned into a Hamas recruitment rally by a clever academic gimmick. The director of the Center for Near East Studies carefully selected only Israel bashers for the panel, each of whom concluded that the Jewish state is the greatest criminal in human history.

The primary purpose of the event was evident the morning after, when unsuspecting, uninvolved students read an article in the campus newspaper titled, “Scholars say: Israel is in violation of human rights in Gaza,” to which the good name of the University of California was attached. This is where Hamas scored its main triumph — another inch of academic respectability, another inroad into Western minds.

Danny’s picture is hanging just in front of me, his warm smile as reassuring as ever. But I find it hard to look him straight in the eyes and say: You did not die in vain.

16 Responses to “Moral Inversion and the Normalizing of Evil”

Lorraine

Usually I am not at a loss for words, but here I am so emotionally rattled that I have so much to say and cannot say anything. All that comes to mind that is coherent is that the Bible says that the day will come when Good is called Evil and Evil is called Good. I feel we are living in that day. God Rest Your Soul Daniel Pearl and all the victims of these barbaric maniacs.
And to the fools at CodePink: You ladies (and I use the term loosely) are fools. Sick simpering fools.
God Help America, Israel and all those fighting against this evil

Fit fit

Samira Ahmed Jassim is evil, but I’m not sure about the girls she had raped in order to turn them into suicide bombers. They could be considered victims, yet they also made a (coerced) decision that resulted in the deaths of others.

Lorraine

Fitfit…..I agree with the premise that there is gray in this world….and not just black and white.
But your view that those girls that became suicide bombers made their own decision is pathetic. They in their religion were brain-washed into thinking that that was the only way to get rid of their shame. And you are pathetic for thinking otherwise.

Fit fit

Gayle

Excellent post, Wordsmith… and also sad and scary! Nothing much has changed since WWII when Americans virtually ignored Hitler. It took the bombing of Pearl Harbor to wake them up. We had 9/11 and that didn’t do it. I hate to contemplate what it will take to wake them up now.

Lorraine

The girls that were raped FItfit and sent out ARE victims….twice. The boys they send out are believing in their cause…..but they are victims also….though they do not think so. They are doing this for Allah. The girls are doing it to rid themselves of shame that was perpetrated on them by one sick lady….excuse me, female.
I hope you can see the difference…but somehow I doubt it

Matej

Couldn’t agree more, at my university here in Scotland the student’s union association put two motions to vote for the university to divest from two Israeli companies because of their involvement with the Israeli military and operations in the territories.

It was advertised that a “debate” would take place but it quickly turned into an Israeli hate-fest, where the organization of Arab students and other liberal (communist) students was evident as they achieved in passing both motions without much opposition. There was no speaker for the side of Israel or to speak against this senseless divestment, I was disgusted beyond belief.

This was all done under the thin veil of “ethical investment” which seems to be sweeping all of Europe as the new popular way to boycott nations which actively pursue terrorist organizations and to support companies that either turn a blind eye to this struggle or are in support of it themselves.

bbartlog

This is the testament of an egomaniac, or if we want to be more charitable someone who has been deranged by the murder of his son:

Those around the world who mourned for Danny in 2002 genuinely hoped that Danny’s murder would be a turning point in the history of man’s inhumanity to man, and that the targeting of innocents to transmit political messages would quickly become, like slavery and human sacrifice, an embarrassing relic of a bygone era.

Say what? The twentieth century with its tens of millions of civilians dead did not wake us… but now that *my* son has been killed, I thought the world would recognize the barbarity of murdering innocents! You can see two themes of Jewish religion in this; the belief in the value of sacrifice (cf. the story of Isaac) and the belief in tikkun olam.

His commentary on Samir Kuntar’s reception in the Muslim world also appears to deliberately misrepresent their beliefs. If we took his account at face value, we would believe that the Arab world celebrates his killing of a four year old girl; instead, it appears that they have embraced a conspiracy theory which blames the death on the firefight surrounding his capture. Ludicrous as this theory is (it reminds me of the black community and the OJ Simpson case), it actually tells us something rather the opposite of what Judea implies: far from embracing the murder of a four year old girl, the Muslims need a fabrication that shifts the blame to their enemy before they can lionize Kuntar.

I do like his comment on the ‘cycle of violence’. On the one hand, chronologically we could say: sure, there is a cycle of violence and retaliation. But of course the sly thing about phrasing it this way is that the speaker implies that *if only* the Israelis could restrain themselves from violence, the ‘cycle’ would be broken – and that, of course, is not true; it would just change the ‘cycle’ in to a one way ‘stream’ of violence…

Finally there’s this: Civilized society, so it seems, is so numbed by violence that it has lost its gift to be disgusted by evil.

Of course people become desensitized. Blame mass media. But even without that, it’s a bit much to expect the murder of one person to arouse a worldwide reaction, regardless of how important he may have been to you.

I’m also a little curious about this:

…each of whom concluded that the Jewish state is the greatest criminal in human history.
The primary purpose of the event was evident the morning after, when unsuspecting, uninvolved students read an article in the campus newspaper titled, “Scholars say: Israel is in violation of human rights in Gaza,”

Is his comment on their conclusions deliberate hyperbole? I would assume so. In any case, the problem Israel has is that the first world has a double standard for human rights. And by this I don’t mean ‘Israel versus everybody else’, as some would have it, but ‘Western World versus everyone else’. We tacitly assume that whoever is in charge in places like Uganda, Kyrgyzstan, and Syria is not going to live up to our standards of human rights, and we don’t bother to call them on it unless they start crossing the norms of behavior that we applied to ourselves circa 1700 or so. Whereas we judge places like the USA, Norway, and Israel by a much, much higher standard. I can see why the Israelis don’t like this, but it’s also a backhanded compliment.

Wordsmith

I can tell you from viewing many of these beheading snuff films in the past that they are absolutely horrible. Contrary to the claims made by terror apologists, the victims suffer greatly. It is not over quickly.

Why do I tell you this? Because this is the true nature of the Taliban and other “resistance” organizations. Those who murdered Piotr Stanczak are held up as heroes, not criminals, by Islamist fanatics. And some on the Left equivocate between US soldiers accidentally killing civilians with the intentional murder of civilians, such as this Polish hostage.

In the rare case that our soldiers do commit such crimes, we call them what they are: criminals. And we prosecute them.

No sane person could ever support the Taliban and their ilk, nor could they ever equivocate between us and them.